gjsint172
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:35 pm

KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:25 am

Can anyone shed some light on what the yellow pods are hanging from the engine mounts on this KC-767?

http://www.microvoltradio.com/images/kpae1679.jpg

GJSINT172
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:30 am

It's obvious they do it to act as weight for the engines, but I'm not exactly sure why.




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
N27UADIESEL8
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:40 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:05 am

We used to used them as counterweight when the engines were removed on the L1011 and sometimes on the DC-8.

Hope it helps.

N27UADIESEL8
Fine Air flight 101 never again..............
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:14 am

The weights keep the airplane from tipping back onto its tail. Note that the engines, which are quite heavy, are in front of the mains.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:47 am



Quoting Gjsint172 (Thread starter):
Can anyone shed some light on what the yellow pods are hanging from the engine mounts on this KC-767?



Quoting NWA742 (Reply 1):
It's obvious they do it to act as weight for the engines, but I'm not exactly sure why.

 checkmark 

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 3):
The weights keep the airplane from tipping back onto its tail. Note that the engines, which are quite heavy, are in front of the mains.

 boggled 

They are counter weights, but not for weight and balance to keep it from tipping on its tail. A simple block of weight inside the cargo door will do that, and that is a lot easier thwn removing the engines. The weights are there to keep a weight load on the wings as there is (most likely) no fuel in the main wing tanks.

If Boeing wins the KC-45 contract, this airplane will be the first of 4 flight test tankers, and will be designated the YKC-45A by the USAF.

BTW, Airbus also has an A-330 assembled (less engines) for the same program should NG/EADS win the contract, that A-330 will then become the YKC-45A.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13246
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:32 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
If Boeing wins the KC-45 contract, this airplane will be the first of 4 flight test tankers, and will be designated the YKC-45A by the USAF.

Are you sure? I thought the KC-767 Advanced Tanker put forward by Boeing is based on the yet-to-be-built B767-200ERF (incorporating parts from -200 and -400).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
VHHYI
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:52 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:39 am

I thought it was this one:
Boeing has USAF KC-767 Stored?
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:01 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
If Boeing wins the KC-45 contract, this airplane will be the first of 4 flight test tankers, and will be designated the YKC-45A by the USAF.

I do not believe that is the case. That frame is a KC-767 which is a different beast then the KC-767 Advanced Boeing is pitching for the KC-45A RFP as well as the 767-200LRF. That plane likely has 767-200ER wings and undercarriage, while the KC-45A/762LRF will have the wings from a 767-400ER (sans winglets) and the undercarriage from the 767-300F.

I expect the original KC-767 frame will just be scrapped unless it can be used for the JASDF or the Italian Air Force.
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:53 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The weights are there to keep a weight load on the wings as there is (most likely) no fuel in the main wing tanks.

What would happen if they didn't keep a load on the wings without fuel in them?




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
Oroka
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:38 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I expect the original KC-767 frame will just be scrapped unless it can be used for the JASDF or the Italian Air Force.

They should beable to use this airframe as a non production typical test airframe and retire it after system validation, or convert it and offer it to another KC-767 operator.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:48 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
Are you sure? I thought the KC-767 Advanced Tanker put forward by Boeing is based on the yet-to-be-built B767-200ERF (incorporating parts from -200 and -400).

You mean the B-767-200LRF. But, the RFP allows the OEMs to build up to four prototypes, which do not have to be configuered as the production airplanes. But, they do have to be able to test all of the final configueration equipment, just not on the same airframe (which is why there are up to 4 YKC-45As). Eventually the four test airplanes will be rebuilt as production airplanes, or scrapped and production ariplanes in their place

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I do not believe that is the case. That frame is a KC-767 which is a different beast then the KC-767 Advanced Boeing is pitching for the KC-45A RFP as well as the 767-200LRF. That plane likely has 767-200ER wings and undercarriage, while the KC-45A/762LRF will have the wings from a 767-400ER (sans winglets) and the undercarriage from the 767-300F.

That is correct. This airplane is actually closer to the KC-767J configueration for the JASDF. But, it can still be uised for the USAF flight tetsing.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 8):
What would happen if they didn't keep a load on the wings without fuel in them?

I'm not real sure. But, my guess is something to do with wing alignment.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 3):
The weights keep the airplane from tipping back onto its tail. Note that the engines, which are quite heavy, are in front of the mains.


They are counter weights, but not for weight and balance to keep it from tipping on its tail. A simple block of weight inside the cargo door will do that, and that is a lot easier thwn removing the engines. The weights are there to keep a weight load on the wings as there is (most likely) no fuel in the main wing tanks.

Eh? The weights are there because the engines have been removed. The A/C was in storage, and they had a better use for the engines. Without the engines (given where the engines are mounted on the A/C in question) the aircraft is quite tail heavy, so they added the weights. This is actually quite common.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kevin Wachter




Sometimes you see a tailstand or a weight attached to the nose gear used instead. And it of course depends on the particular aircraft, and where the engines are mounted, as to what, if anything, is needed.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13246
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:41 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
You mean the B-767-200LRF

I do. It's not even like E is next to L on the keyboard!  crazy 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
But, the RFP allows the OEMs to build up to four prototypes, which do not have to be configuered as the production airplanes.

OK, makes sense.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:21 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
They are counter weights, but not for weight and balance to keep it from tipping on its tail. A simple block of weight inside the cargo door will do that, and that is a lot easier thwn removing the engines. The weights are there to keep a weight load on the wings as there is (most likely) no fuel in the main wing tanks.

First they are counterweights, they do simulate the weight of the engines, so the aircraft will not tip. Second, putting a block that size and that weigh could (and very likely would) over stress the cargo compartment floor. Third, the engines were not removed to installed the counterweight, the counterweight are installed because the engines are not available too install.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:52 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
Second, putting a block that size and that weigh could (and very likely would) over stress the cargo compartment floor.

Each compartment within the cargo compartment (yes, it is divided into sections for accureate weight and balance computations, body stations are also used), can easily handle the weight of two of these blocks (up to 9,000lbs each for CF-6s, RB-211s, or JT-9Ds). So 18,000lbs-20,000lbs are no problem, esspecially for an airplane that isn't moving.

The floors can easily take this amount of static weight.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I expect the original KC-767 frame will just be scrapped unless it can be used for the JASDF or the Italian Air Force.

I don't that that is possible due to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
But, the RFP allows the OEMs to build up to four prototypes, which do not have to be configuered as the production airplanes. But, they do have to be able to test all of the final configueration equipment, just not on the same airframe (which is why there are up to 4 YKC-45As). Eventually the four test airplanes will be rebuilt as production airplanes, or scrapped and production ariplanes in their place

I don't recall reading anywhere in the RFP the ability of a manufacturer to do as you have stated. it defeats the purpose.

The differences they proposed



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The floors can easily take this amount of static weight.

The floor loading limit is normally about 200 lb/ft^2 for that size aircraft.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:02 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
I don't that that is possible due to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Current KC-767s - including that one - had their military equipment added at Boeing IDS Wichita, so I would think they would be in compliance with ITAR.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:32 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
I don't that that is possible due to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

They can probably get a license to sell it, as they already have gotten licenses to sell KC-767s to Italy and Japan.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:36 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The floors can easily take this amount of static weight.

The floor loading limit is normally about 200 lb/ft^2 for that size aircraft.

That's the same limit we had in the KC-135A, with a plywood cargo floor. You can add multipul sheets of 3/4" (22mm) plywood to increase floor strenght to 500lbs/sqft. How do you think we could carry spare engines, powered ground equipment, and unarmed bomber weapons around?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
I don't recall reading anywhere in the RFP the ability of a manufacturer to do as you have stated. it defeats the purpose.

That's why EADS is getting a pax version A-330-200 for the tanker prototype ready now, instead of the A-330-200F version, which will be the actual KC-30 offered to the USAF.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:45 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
How do you think we could carry spare engines, powered ground equipment, and unarmed bomber weapons around?

Don't know, and I guess you don't either, possibly they were modified in some areas.

The 200 lb/ft^2 is the standard floor loading using containers/pallets in that class of aircraft, it represents a distributed load, not a point load.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
That's why EADS is getting a pax version A-330-200 for the tanker prototype ready now, instead of the A-330-200F version, which will be the actual KC-30 offered to the USAF.

That is not correct, yet another misrepresentation of the truth.

Northrup Grumman offered the KC-30, which was based on the A330-200, not A330-200F.

"I think [the switch to the Freighter model] is inevitable, but right now it%u2019s not in our proposal," said Paul Meyer, Northrop%u2019s VP and general manager for the KC-30 programme."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...200f-if-it-wins-usaf-contract.html

(added link)

[Edited 2008-01-28 16:20:30]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: KC-767 Picture Question

Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:40 pm



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 11):
Without the engines (given where the engines are mounted on the A/C in question) the aircraft is quite tail heavy, so they added the weights.

 checkmark 

Quote:
"We found ourselves rolling 747s out of the factory with 5,000-pound concrete blocks dangling from their wings where the engines should be," Sutter wrote in his book "Without those weights, the airplanes would have sat back on their tails."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/278182_airshownotebook20.html
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests